add_distribution_upgrade

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a mutation (adding a channel) but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether an existing channel is replaced, if the operation is idempotent, or any permission requirements). Without annotations, this lack of detail leaves significant ambiguity about behavioral traits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the purpose. It contains no filler or redundant information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is relatively simple with two required numeric parameters and no output schema. However, the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., success indicator, updated release object) or any error conditions (e.g., if the release does not exist). Given the simplicity, this is adequate but leaves room for improvement.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, with both parameters described ('Release ID' and 'Distribution channel ID from list_distributions'). The tool description adds a minor clarification by equating distribution channel with 'wire,' but does not significantly expand on parameter formats or relationships beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description is specific and clear: 'Add a specific distribution channel (wire) to an existing release.' It names the precise action (add), the resource (distribution channel/wire), and the target (existing release), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_distributions (which lists) and add_first_release_keyword (which adds keywords).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description only states the action itself. While it is implicitly clear that this is for adding a distribution channel, there is no mention of needing to first create a release or obtain a distribution_id via list_distributions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.